Well, part of that is that we’re biologically programmed to respond to a child’s distress signals. And kids have gotten used to using these distress signals in ways that don’t indicate distress.

You ever wonder why a crying baby COMMANDS your attention? It’s physically distressing to not bring comfort to the child.

That’s part of why letting your child “cry it out” in public is kinda taboo: You’re distressing people just by being there, and they can’t ignore it (unless they’ve learned to tune it out through extensive practice).

Not that I advocate giving in to a fussy child — quite the opposite — but if it’s not illness-related (earache) and you’re not in a horrible time crunch (or already in a long line, where losing your place would be worse than putting up with it), leave the area, calm the kid down, return; repeat as necessary. And if you have to stay there, do what you can to distract or mollify the kid, for the sake of those around you… though, again, without training the kid that fussiness brings treats.

Being in the type of relationship — regardless of which specific relationship it is — where an unexpected meeting provokes an unambiguously joyous response, that is one of the greatest pleasures I have ever known. I used to enjoy the nicknames my nephews and nieces gave me (like “Mimiya” — my name being “Alethia” and apparently that’s difficult for them to pronounce at a young age).

The principle, though, got driven home for me about a year ago when a couple friends were about to head off to college, and we held a good-bye-and-good-advice dinner for them. I’d run a little gaming group to introduce them and one of their friends to tabletop gaming over one summer, and after we finished I hadn’t seen that friend again (it had been months). She had seemed to enjoy spending time with me but (as a person with self-esteem issues) it’s hard for me to take that at face value.

When I showed up at the dinner, she was seated next to the wall behind a small sea of other people. She took one look at me and vaulted out of her seat and squeezed past everyone else at the table to come give me a delighted hug.

Actually, her explanation could be accurate, it’s just far too limited to be right.
“In general terms, a civil lawsuit is the court-based process through which Person A can seek to hold Person B liable for some type of wrong. Usually, if Person A is successful, he or she will be awarded compensation for the harm that resulted from Person B’s action or inaction.”

My guess is she watched one episode of a lawyer show(or part of one), got bored, and went back to watching cartoon zombies.

Funny thing Judge Judy, each person on it gets a certain amount of money just for being there and the settlements come out of that appearance money. It’s really just a big game show. This is what happens at 2 in the morning when you just have to read everything.

I read a reddit AMA once from a lady who appeared on Judge Judy. According to her, Judge Judy is more of an arbitrator than a judge in terms of actions performed. They sign a contract agreeing to adhere to her ruling as binding arbitration, and the show pays out the rulings.

So the cases ARE real in the sense that people bring small claims forward and agree to adhere to her rulings under a binding contract. They just don’t pay the claims out-of-pocket.

All that may well be. I brought it up because, in the admittedly small sample size of the episodes I’ve watched (probably about half a dozen in the past year — it’s usually on when I’m at work), most of the cases started off with “So-and-so is suing their former friend …” That seems like the kind of thing someone Selkie’s age would pick up on.

Just think of it as the logical endgame of some of these trials. They certainly start off real, though me and a friend of mine did want to sue each other, get on there and split the money 50/50 after making fools of ourselves and Judy.

It’s like the People’s Court if people remember that. Largely crap, but sometimes the cases are almost interesting.